9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees are dismissed as 'not maintainable'. - IT APPEAL NOS. 119 TO 121 (BANG.) OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - GEORGE K., AND JASON P. BOAZ, JJ. R.B. Krishna for the Appellant. G. Saravanan for the Respondent. ORDER George George K. Judicial Member - These three appeals instituted by the erstwhile directors - Shri N. Gowrishankar, Shri T.V. Vishwanath Gupta and N Jagannath, in their individual capacity - of M/s. Kwality Biscuits Limited [KBL], are directed against the consolidated order of the learned CIT(A)-I, Bangalore dated 10.12.2009. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. 2. In all these appeals, the grounds raised are identical. For the sake of convenience and clarity, they are reformulated as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed the erstwhile directors of KBL (the present assesses) vide letter dated 31.3.2008 that garnishee proceedings have been initiated against them as Ex-directors of KBL, presumably, by invoking the provisions of s. 179 of the Act; - when contested the same, the initiation of garnishee proceedings against them, as the provisions of s.179 cannot be invoked against them etc., according to the assessees, the garnishee proceedings initiated were not pursued and, subsequently withdrawn; - apprehending that the threat of the provisions of s. 179 of the Act continues and the liability of KBL to be saddled on them, they took a view that they were aggrieved by the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act passed in the case of KB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, raising a sizeable demand of Rs. 12.82 crores. Subsequently, a copy of the letter dt. 31.3.2008 was issued individually on the erstwhile directors of KBL, namely, the present assessees, appraising them, among others, non disposal of appeal preferred by KBL before the CIT(A) by order of 30.4.08, no further request for say of demand will be considered unless 50% of the demand is paid by 15.5.08. This cannot be a solitary ground for the assessees to presume that they are entitled to challenge the order passed in the case of KBL. 9.1 On a perusal of the impugned assessment order of the AO, we find that a demand of Rs. 12.82 crores had been raised in the case of KBL. Subsequently, a letter dt.31.3.2008 was issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant previous year shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax unless .' However, in the present appeals, no such specific order u/s 179 of the Act has been passed by the Assessing Officer against the present assessees, making them liable for the payment of such tax etc., A mere letter of the AO dated 31.3.2008 informing the Principal Officer of Britannia Industries Limited that 'no further request for stay of demand will be considered unless 50% of the demand is paid by 15.5.08' in the case of KBL for the AY 2001-02 and a copy of which endorsed to the present assessees, in our considered view, cannot be attributed by any stretch of imagination that the assessees have been made liable to pay tax due on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
